Wednesday, March 29, 2017


By Lloyd Billingsley




In classic style, the California Democrat provides no evidence for what he assumes up front to be true. On the other hand, he fails to provide any contrast between Democrats and Republicans in recent actions involving Russia, some of them strategic. 

Since the days of Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative, which Democrats derided as “Star Wars,” Russia had denounced U.S. efforts to shield itself and European allies from missile attack. The Russian protests got particularly loud when the Bush administration worked out a missile defense pact with Poland and the Czech Republic.

One of the first actions of George W. Bush’s successor, the 44th president, was to cancel missile defense for U.S. allies Poland and the Czech Republic. Even the New York Times called it a “security reversal.” Mitt Romney called it a “gift to Russia” and more gifts were on the way in the “re-set” of relations.


The most Clinton could claim for the reset policy, noted James Kirchick, was “a collection of atmospheric achievements,” commemorative WWII marches, meetings and such. A week after the departure of Dimitry Medvedev, when the FBI busted 10 Russian spies operating in the United States, the Democrats’ Russian re-set team promptly swept it “under the rug.”


It was all, to paraphrase Ian Fleming, “to Russia with love.” Yet as Nancy Pelosi claims, Putin had a “vendetta” against Hillary Clinton, and as Adam Schiff explains, Putin opted to oppose Hillary Clinton and back Donald Trump in the 2016 election. That narrative emerged only after Trump’s victory last November, with good reason.

The Democrats and their allies in the old-line establishment media are “progressives,” who have somehow escaped the conditioning that affects the masses and know where history is progressing. Therefore, if progressive candidate Hillary Clinton fails to win, the reason must be interference by Russia.



Adam Schiff has yet to explain why the all-powerful Russian spooks were unable to produce Hillary Clinton’s 30,000 emails, which she kept on an unsecured server in her house. Revealing those would have killed her candidacy in a second. Many of the emails were doubtless related to the 2012 terrorist attack in Benghazi, which Secretary Clinton, the 44th president, and Susan Rice all claimed was part of a video protest.

On these events Adam Schiff can boast experience as a member of the Benghazi Select Committee. In a July 31, 2014 statement Schiff said, “the initial talking points provided by the intelligence community were flawed because of conflicting assessments not an intention to deceive.”

Secretary Clinton not only deceived but after the fact wondered aloud “at this point, what difference does it make” how the four Americans had been killed. For his part, Adam Schiff is unable to consider the reality that Hillary Clinton lost because voters perceived her as shrill, corrupt, untrustworthy, and incompetent.  

So Adam Schiff, the Stanford grad who earned his JD at Harvard Law School, is the ideal mouthpiece for the notion that Vladimir Putin became an “active participant in the U.S. election” and attempted “to influence its result for Donald Trump and against Hillary Clinton.” 

To be sure, Schiff is a partisan Democrat but there’s more to it. As Saul Bellow explained, “a great deal of intelligence can be invested in ignorance when the need for illusion is deep.”



Anonymous said...

Bull-Schiff INDEED!

That clown I looney to the max.

The Triguy said...

He's a democrat and comes from California. To me, that explains a lot! Best, Dr. Bill